Letter: We're all worse off

William SchuermanSt. Augustine

Published Friday, October 29, 2004

Editor: It seems appropriate to me as a Republican to apply the test put forth by President Reagan to determine if a regime change is needed. The test was, "are you better off now than you were four years ago," -- 2004 vs. 2000 in this case.

During the past four years my net worth in stocks has shrunk by 50 percent and the 5 percent return I used to get on my money market accounts is now 1 percent. I do not feel better off.

There was a federal budget surplus, one of the few in my long lifetime, and I felt better off because of that. Now we have record deficits for our grandchildren to pay. None of us is better off now.

We were respected and admired throughout the world for our freedoms and productivity and now we are just feared by the people of most countries. I do not feel better off.

Millions of people had good paying jobs with benefits only to be out-sourced to other countries and forced to take lower paying and benefit jobs to survive. None of us is better off for that.

The U.S. was under threat from al-Qaida in 2000, though the public was not made aware of that fact. It would have been better off if had we confronted al-Qaida at that time rather than in 2001 when we all suffered a loss.

We attacked a Muslim nation with no real justification and turned off most of our usual allies and the entire Muslim world in the process. Now, instead of having a few thousand radical Muslims for terrorist recruiting, we have more than a billion. My security is far worse off now.

These are only a few tests but should be enough for all to get the picture. We are far worse off now than we were in 2000 and a regime change is needed. Flag-waving doesn't cut it. I would have voted for a middle-of-the-road Republican but the right wing has hijacked the party. I will do my best to see President Bush and his handlers removed from office.